The Monsanto house was raised above the ground, like a mushroom or a white ray gun, its rooms radiating out like spokes of a wheel. It was 1957 and this was the “House of the Future,” a prototype modular house created by Monsanto, in collaboration with M.I.T. to help solve the housing / baby boom crisis in Canada and in the United States. Not coincidentally, the house was made of plastic which was one of Monsanto’s products at the time.

“They imagined fast subdivisions of this house, like Levittown,” says Gary Van Zante, curator of architecture and design at the M.I.T. Museum.While that never happened, Walt Disney did select the Monsanto experimental house as a feature at his new Disneyland. For 10 years, the chemical giant’s creation stood peacefully in The Happiest Place On Earth where millions of people marveled at it until it was torn down. It is safe to say that if Monsanto’s pod house were erected there today, it would not be such a happy home.

​Over the past decade, Monsanto has become a pop cultural bogeyman, the face of corporate evil. The company and its genetically modified (GMO) seeds have been the subject of muckraking documentaries (“Forks Over Knives” and “GMO OMG“), global protests, and assaults by everybody from environmental activists to The Colbert Report. Facebook and other social media are awash in memes and hashtags like #monsantoevil. Everyone, it seems, has an opinion about Monsanto.

This past year, when Monsanto bought a weather data company called the Climate Corporation for about $1 billion, David Friedberg, the company’s CEO, found himself bending over backwards justifying his decision to sell. Friedberg told the New Yorker that even his father disapproved: “His first reaction was: Monsanto? The most evil company in the world? I thought you were trying to make the world a better place? Friedberg also felt compelled to write a letter to his entire staff, laying out his raisoin d'etre to sell to Monsanto. In short, dear reader, you don’t need a degree in marketing to understand that Monsanto has a huge public relations problem.

How did this happen? How did Monsanto go from the future of American innovation to late-night comedy stand-up routines? Critics point to their role in genetically modified organisms.

Monsanto is not a consumer facing company. Hence, its actual biotechnological workings are mystifying to the average person. Yet Monsanto manages to serve as a focal point for popular fear and rage about safe food, political pandering, pollution and globalization. Why? The answer is complicated and yet, numerous experts point to a smoking gun: the bungled launch of GMO seeds in Europe in 1998. This marketing blunder progressed into a vicious war of disinformation which, up the present day, shows little sign of abating. If you set aside for a moment from the usual debate about whether GMOs are bad or good, a curious fact emerges. For here we have Monsanto, a rich and powerful company that seems to excel at nearly everything it does, except one important thing: Monsanto sucks at spin control.

​Before Monsanto became the face of industrial agriculture, it courted controversy in other ways — namely, as a chemical company. Founded in 1901, Monsanto was one of a handful of companies that produced Agent Orange, and its main poison, Dioxin. Monsanto produced and sold DDT, PCBs, the controversial dairy cow hormone, rBGH, and the cancer-linked Aspartame sweetener. Pictured above is a photograph of American planes spraying Agent Orange to defoliate thick vegetation during the conflict with the North Vietnamese.

The most commonly used and most effective mixture of herbicides was Agent Orange, so named because of the orange stripe painted on the 55-gallon drums in which the mixture was stored. American planes sprayed more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam between January 1965 and April 1970. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Agent Orange contained “minute traces” of tetrachlorodibenzo, more commonly known as dioxin. Studies done on laboratory animals shows that dioxin is highly toxic e and human exposure to the chemical is associated with serious health issues such as cancer, muscular dysfunction, inflammation, birth defects and nervous system disorders.

During the ‘80s, however, Monsanto shed its chemicals and plastics divisions and it bought up seed companies, invested in bio genetics research, and ultimately reincorporated itself as an agricultural company. Monsanto's first GMO product, the patented Glyphosate-resistant, Round-Up Ready soybean, was approved by the USDA in 1994. Round Up is the weed-killer brand name given to Gyphosate.

Glyphosate (phosphonomethyl glycine)is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup™, and many other agricultural, forestry, and residential herbicides with the products names Rodeo™ and Pondmaster™, etc. It is a broad spectrum, non-selective systemic herbicide.

Amazingly, the mode of action of glyphosate is not known. There is considerable research that points the potential that the pesticide inhibits the shikimic acid pathway, which prevents plants from synthesizing three aromatic amino acids. It has also been shown to inhibit the enzyme EPSP synthase and a host of other enzymes in specific plant species.

Commercial glyphosate is composed of a myriad of other chemicals all with the purpose of making the herbicide easier to use. These products are generally not placed on the label. Estimates are that over 99% of the product is composed of these inert products, of which little research has been conducted.

The toxicity of glyphosate alone is much less than the toxicity of commercial glyphosate used by consumers, due to the so-called “inert” ingredients in the commercial formulation. For example the surfactanct polyethoxylated tallowamine has an acute lethal dose three times that of glyphosate alone and destroys red blood cells. Yet toxicity studies used to regulate the product only examine the “active” ingredient only and not the formulation.

A study of Ontario farmers, found that those using glyphosate had an increase of miscarriages and premature births within their family. Also, glyphosate has been shown to disrupt hormones that regulate oestrogen synthesis, important reproductive hormones that have also been shown to have a role in bone growth and testicular function.

Examinations of the effects of Roundup™ on human lymphocytes have shown an increase in the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges, genetic exchanges during cell division resulting in point mutations.

Glyphosate has been shown to kill beneficial insects including parasitoid wasps, lacewings and ladybugs.[8] Other insect populations have been drastically reduced by glyphosate populations, which negatively impacts on birds and small insect-eating mammals.[9] These changes in plant communities impact birds’ sources of food, shelter and nest support.

Glyphosate in its commercial form is 20 to 70 times more toxic to fish than glyphosate alone. It is also increasingly toxic at higher temperatures. This is significant when one considers that glyphosate is a defoliant and the lack of plant cover increases the temperature of waterways. Sublethal effects on fish include erratic swimming, gill damage, and changes in liver structure.

Glyphosate also impacts non-target plant species in several important ways. In low doses,it decreases both the number of seeds germinating and the seedling weight as compared to untreated plants. It also affects the ability of bacteria located on the nodules of leguminous plants to perform nitrogen fixation, an essential process converting nitrogen from an unusable form to a compound that is able to be used by the plant. Studies have shown that at typically application rates, glyphosate inhibits up to 70% of nitrogen fixation.

Corn and soybeans, are some of the crops that have been genetically modified with genes that convey resistance to the herbicide Roundup™. There exist numerous other health, environmental and economic issues with these products. For information on genetically modified, glyphosate resistant crops see Sierra Club of Canada’s fact sheets on Genetically Modified Organisms.

Glyphosate is a herbicide that is constantly lauded as benign. These affirmations are based on studies examining the active ingredient only. In the field, our lawns, our communities, however a different result has emerged. Glyphosate has caused a host of acute and chronic effects ranging from red blood cell destruction to increased propensity for miscarriages. The effects on wildlife, from fish to birds and also non-target species have been observed at doses lower than the application rates suggested. info@sierraclub.ca

​The soybean is re-engineered with resistance to weed-killer already in the plant. When Round Up is sprayed on the crop, the soybean plants are not adversely affected by glyphosate because the soybean has a built-in resistance to glyphosate. In Monsanto jargon, "Your crop it is Round Up ready!" Such a labour-saving idea was unheard-of until Monsanto came along. Farmers who plant GMO soybeans save thousands of dollars every year because Round Up kills all the weeds leaving the Soybean plant alive and well. No need to pull weeds! The inherent problem is this: When you eat GMO soybeans, you eat weed-killer residue (glyphosate) right along with your tofu. Many veggie burgers and other food products are made with soybeans including that Soy Silk milk-like drink we all know and love.

​Most Americans had never heard of Monsanto until it tried to sell the seeds to Europe. That’s when things turned sour.In 1996, Britain was reeling from the Mad Cow disease epidemic, in which the British Government insisted the highly dangerous disease posed no risk to human health while people were dying. Brits were taught quickly about the modern farm system and they were primed to be suspicious of GMOs’ supposed safety. Although the seeds were approved by the European Union, consumers rebelled in England. Grocery store chains pushed back, tabloids printed stories about “Frankenfoods” and environmental groups such as Greenpeace swung into action with high-profile campaigns. Even Prince Charles, a longtime supporter of organic farming, wrote a newspaper editorial stating that genetic engineering “takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone.”

This reaction caught Monsanto off guard. As Dan Charles writes in his book, “Lords of the Harvest,” Philip Angell, the head of Monsanto’s corporate communications, bemoaned that the British were the sad sacks of Europe for their suspicion of genetically modified organisms. Monsanto insisted it could overcome the all the negativity.

“The predominant attitude at the company was, ‘If they don’t like it and if they try to block it, we will sue them,’” says a former Monsanto employee who asked to remain anonymous when speaking to Modern Farmer.

Monsanto responded with what was supposed to be a cleverly counter-intuitive $1.6 million ad campaign that read: “Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions and Monsanto believes you should hear all of them.” The ads included the phone numbers and email addresses of opposing groups but the advertisements struck their audience as glib and insincere.

Too little too late, Monsanto tried a different tack, engaging in a dialogue with stakeholders all over Europe. Monsanto’s CEO Robert Shapiro apologized for the company’s condescension and arrogance at a Greenpeace meeting in 1999. But the damage had already been done. Monsanto emerged from the bungled launch of GMOs in the UK looking like an arrogant, condescending bully; and the image stuck.

​The Terminator and the Rosy-Cheeked Canadian Farmer

The above film is a wonderful documentary about how evil a narrow-focused profit driven a corporation can be. This important film shows that the corporate agenda of Monsanto is destructive to democracy. Monsanto spreads it seed around the countries and around the world and this film provides first hand evidence of Monsanto tyranny on the small farmer. Do it our way or we'll investigate you and threaten you and follow through with law-suits and use the legal system to promote the corporation's rights. The local farmers are told by Monsanto, " Your crop is no longer organic, your crop is no longer non-GMO, and your crop is no longer yours! This disaster is spreading around the world which is why we say thank you to all the Percy Schmeisers out there who stand up to such corporations.

In 1998, Monsanto announced plans to acquire a seed company called Delta Pine and Land Company. Delta Pine had developed a patented seed that could only be propagated once. Environmental groups were horrified to be told these seeds could only be propagated once and since they could not be replanted, farmers were forced to buy fresh seed every year.

Environmental groups also capitalized on the public’s fear of the unknown, especially as it related to big emotional triggers of personal health and safety. A typical example, was Friends of the Earth’s 1999 mailing campaign, which read: How Safe is the Food You Eat? and the scary answer is no one really knows. This set the pattern for our current debate about GMOs: even as scientists argue in the New York Times and elsewhere that the technology has not been shown to be bad to humans. The notion that these kinds of crops are too new to be properly vetted paves the way for monster analogies which graft nicely onto such gray zones.

Since Monsanto failed to understand the emotional dimensions of the debate, Monsanto has been unable to shake its image. By its own admission, Monsanto views its patented GMO seeds the way the software industry views its proprietary technology. When you buy a patented version of Adobe Photoshop, the consumer is bound by a terms-of-service agreement. Similarly, Monsanto binds its customers to a terms-of-service agreement when customers buy Monsanto's technology. The terms of service agreement includes stipulations such as the inability to save and replant the seed and when Monsanto learns that the terms of service have been violated, they simply sue the farmers. Monsanto has a hot-line that whistle-blowers can call to alert Monsanto of patent infringements.

Although this makes sense from a business perspective, it’s problematic from a public relations perspective. The technology Monsanto sells is seeds and seeds have rich cultural and even spiritual associations Seeds have historically been a part of the natural world that belongs to everybody and nobody, like the dirt on the ground or the water in the ocean. The customers at risk are the farmers who produce the food we see in the produce section at our local supermarket.

The pitfalls of Monsanto’s approach are most glaringly evident in the case of Percy Schmeiser, a rosy-cheeked Canadian farmer who faced a lawsuit from Monsanto in 1998 after he refused to pay the licensing fee for growing GMO canola. Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for $200,000. Schmeiser claimed that the GMO canola seed had blown onto his farm by mistake. He claimed he was not infringing on Monsanto’s patent agreement because he did not intend to use glyphosate on the canola. Some of the crucial facts of the case remain hotly disputed: how much of Schmeiser’s farm was planted with the GMO canola, whether he knew what exactly he was growing and whether his claim that he was not going to use Round-Up was truthful. The case went to the Supreme Court in Canada where the judge set aside the lawsuit releasing Percy Schmeiser from any further liability. Percy Schmeiser- 1 Monsanto - 0

But these murky areas get lost in the broad brush-strokes that colour public opinion. Schmeiser was made into the poster child for the innocent farmer sued by big, bad evil Monsanto. For the past several years, Percy has been a regular on the anti-GMO lecture circuit. He is also the subject of the documentary, “David Versus Monsanto” which continuously painted Monsanto in an unflattering light.

Monsanto does not appear chastened by this Pyrrhic victory. A page on company’s web site describes the Schmeiser case in defiant terms: “The truth is this: Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He’s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story.” Monsanto is clearly a company that undervalues the power of storytelling.

​​The debate about GMOs’ safety, both in terms of potential dangers to the environment and to human health, is complex. Proponents say there have been no studies proving that GMOs are harmful. Opponents say there have not been enough studies to convincingly prove GMOs are safe.

“The whole debate has gotten so very, very polarized,” says Glenn Stone, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, who has written extensively about GMOs. The less analytical and more emotional the conversation becomes, says Stone, the more the anti-GMO movement needs “bad guys” to “appeal to those parts of the brain that get excited and run on fury and outrage.” Monsanto has clearly become that bad guy in what he calls the “rhetorical death struggle” that is the GMO debate.

Writing on Grist.org, journalist Nathanael Johnson concludes an impressively exhaustive series on GMOs, by suggesting that the fight is really more existential. He writes: “Beneath all this is a fundamental disagreement about technology. At one end you have the position which suggests our innovations are hurting more then helping us. At the other end are the technological utopians who see restraints on innovation as intolerably prolonging the suffering that would end in a more perfect future.”

The discussion is important, writes Johnson, but very abstract. We need to have something concrete to attach it to, so we attach it to the debate about GMOs. And GMOs, being abstract, we attach the debate to Monsanto.

Perhaps, also, it’s not surprising that Monsanto’s shift into agriculture has made it a target for consumer rage. Food companies are particularly vulnerable to public relations headaches. Historically, companies like Nestle, Coca Cola and McDonald's have been frequent targets of consumer protests, boycotts and media floggings. Although Monsanto doesn’t sell breakfast cereal or hamburgers, it does sell the raw materials. The idea that our food might be adulterated or cause harm is an easy thing to get worked up about.

In a New York Times poll conducted last July, almost a quarter of respondents said that they believed that GMO foods were unsafe to eat or were toxic. And nearly 93 percent supported a GMO labeling law. Monsanto’s position has been that there is a lack of scientific evidence backing up those claims, and that mandatory labels would inaccurately put fear in the heart of consumers. It has spent millions to defeat various state-level bills and ballot proposals.

Monsanto has made many attempts, since the initial launch of its GM seeds, to paint itself in a better light through advertising. In a few campaigns, Monsanto used language about “sustainability,” and in others, they’ve taken the humanizing approach by showing pictures of smiling farmers and smiling Monsanto employees. Monsanto is also attempting to spread the message of new, non-GMO produce initiatives. A recent article was titled “Monsanto Is Going Organic in the Quest for the Perfect Veggie.”

None of these seem to have made any difference, however, at least in the popular debate. Eventually, Monsanto will relinquish its villainous place in pop culture to another evil corporation. As Politico reported this past fall, they have shaken up their internal public relations office and upped contracts with outside image consultants such as Front Porch Strategies. The Politico story also noted that Monsanto is still raking in money winding up 2013 with a 25 percent increase in sales, netting the company $2.5 billion in profit. As the Climate Corporation’s Friedberg noted in his all-staff email, tech companies have begun to assume the mantle of evil corporations and many see Google’s motto “Don’t be evil" as more ironic by the day.

For the time being, the relentless march of anti-GMO sentiment only seems to be pushing Monsanto farther into the evil camp. American states have been legislating for GMO labeling and companies like Chipotle are promising to drop GMO products. If Monsanto has any hope of shifting public opinion towards a brighter future, it’s going to have to find a way to deal with its image today. No one is lining up to live in the house Monsanto built.